The efficacy of circumpatellar electrocautery in reducing the incidence of post-operative anterior knee pain is unknown. We conducted a single-centre, outcome-assessor and patient-blinded, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial to compare circumpatellar electrocautery with no electrocautery in total knee replacement in the absence of patellar resurfacing. Patients requiring knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis were randomly assigned circumpatellar electrocautery (intervention group) or no electrocautery (control group). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of anterior knee pain. A secondary measure was the standardised clinical and patient-reported outcomes determined by the American Knee Society scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index. A total of 131 knees received circumpatellar electrocautery and 131 had no electrocautery. The overall incidence of anterior knee pain at follow-up at one year was 26% (20% to 31%), with 19% (12% to 26%) in the intervention group and 32% (24% to 40%) in the control group (p = 0.02). The relative risk reduction from electrocautery was 40% (9% to 61%) and the number needed to treat was 7.7 (4.3 to 41.4). The intervention group had a better mean total WOMAC score at follow-up at one year compared with the control group (16.3 (0 to 77.7) Our study suggests that in the absence of patellar resurfacing electrocautery around the margin of the patella improves the outcome of total knee replacement.
Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice. Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive. Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged. The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.
